It just the same cases again and again and again

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
They merely fly out of the ocean, grab who they want, and fly back to their underwater location. Then they repeat the process.

I can't simply accept that notion as Fact, despite your own certainty, but you raise an interesting point in general.

I was just discussing USOs with Karl in another thread. It's an alarmingly UNpopular aspect of ufology on ATS despite Fravor's initial sighting of an underwater object in the ever-popular 2004 Nimitz case. Whatever one's opinion of that case, it was disappointing that the USO aspect did not gain greater attention or spark a greater interest generally.

There are plenty of USO cases accessible via the ATS 'Search' function, but they are usually only fleeting discussions, so perhaps it's time we stopped looking UP and dunked our heads DOWN for potential answers to the mystery in an overwhelming stretch of water, the depths of which already pose far more mysteries than the known visible sky.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Ian Ridpath is well known in UFO circles. Unfortunately for him he is well known as a disinfo agent. ATS posters might be aware of disinfo agents because there are several that post on this website. 

Yes he is well known and most defo not an idiot.

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Ian Ridpath is well known in UFO circles. Unfortunately for him he is well known as a disinfo agent. ATS posters might be aware of disinfo agents because there are several that post on this website. 

Yes he is well known and most defo not an idiot.

Yes, Ian was heavily involved in Mirageman's Rendlesham thread a few years back until he was virtually hounded off by incessant attacks from one poster (rarely seen anymore) who insisted he was a disinfo agent because... well, he didn't agree with him.

However, Ridpath's intelligent analysis of the Rendlesham case way back in 1985 is difficult to argue with, although there are still areas that he couldn't readily explain away - eg, the initial red, white and blue lights that kicked off the entire incident. The rest of his work, though, is thorough and compelling.

It's a shame that he was subjected to such vicious attacks that it's unlikely he'll ever re-activate his ATS account. He can be very dry and proudly protective of his work, but then why shouldn't he be? Is he a disinfo agent? No, just someone with a different opinion who admits he was as excited as anyone else when he first heard of the incident.

Thanks for the kind words, ConfusedBrit. I am still around but don’t bother to post much because — well, there’s nothing much new to say, is there? I came back to see if the conversation might have moved on, but we still get the same old claims about the lighthouse (a) not being visible from the forest or, (b), having been visible from East Gate all the time, both of which are wrong (as well as mutually exclusive). I expect my web page(s) are TLDR for most people and I must thank you for being one of the few for whom they weren't. The explanation can still be boiled down to three words: fireball, lighthouse, stars.
As for the lights you mention that remain unexplained — well, we simply don’t have good enough descriptions to attempt an explanation, so I haven’t tried. Burroughs mentions blue lights between the trees on their way back but that could have been the police car turning up in response to the call from the air base. I don’t know.
However, the separate sighting reported by Lori Rehfeldt sounds very much like spotlights shining on the underside of clouds. She was apparently the victim of numerous practical jokes played by her colleagues and, in my view, this was another one of them.
When Vince the forester first told me about the lighthouse I thought it would kill the case stone dead. Neither of us would have imagined it would still be going nearly 40 years later.
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

originally posted by: ianrid
Thanks for the kind words, ConfusedBrit. I am still around but don’t bother to post much because — well, there’s nothing much new to say, is there? I came back to see if the conversation might have moved on, but we still get the same old claims about the lighthouse (a) not being visible from the forest or, (b), having been visible from East Gate all the time, both of which are wrong (as well as mutually exclusive). I expect my web page(s) are TLDR for most people and I must thank you for being one of the few for whom they weren't. The explanation can still be boiled down to three words: fireball, lighthouse, stars.

Welcome back, Ian, what a pleasant surprise.

It's a shame if the TLDR principle has put some people off reading through your work since it is as comprehensive and detailed as it needs to be regarding each aspect of the Rendlesham case, including one of the clearest versions of Halt's tape recording.

As for the lights you mention that remain unexplained — well, we simply don’t have good enough descriptions to attempt an explanation, so I haven’t tried. Burroughs mentions blue lights between the trees on their way back but that could have been the police car turning up in response to the call from the air base. I don’t know.
However, the separate sighting reported by Lori Rehfeldt sounds very much like spotlights shining on the underside of clouds. She was apparently the victim of numerous practical jokes played by her colleagues and, in my view, this was another one of them.

Yes, the initial lights are a confusing detail, but nevertheless important as the instigator of the entire decision to step into UK territory. That they were suspected to be a potential aircraft accident makes it all the more regrettable that, as you say, we have fairly poor descriptions. Good points about Lori Rehfeldt, who is one of the major participants in the controversial Larry Warren-focused 'Capel Green' documentary which seems to trapped in 'development hell', although it may be holding out for the 40th anniversary to make the most impact. And cash.

Despite all the numerous (and wild) decorative details that have been added to the case since it entered the public spotlight in 1983, my overriding image is of a cold, bored and wet Colonel Halt standing in a field at 3.30 am, deciding to turn back to base whilst his 'star-like' [sic] objects remained in the sky, funnily enough, until sunrise - which seems to sum up the entire incident. No wonder he wished the tape had been burned!

Until a year ago, I used to love, wine and dine the Rendlesham case... but now it just seems like an old flame that should have been blown out a long, long time ago.

"Aliens" are creatures of habit.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Until a year ago, I used to love, wine and dine the Rendlesham case... but now it just seems like an old flame that should have been blown out a long, long time ago. 

No chance, Jim is still churning out that big boy of a book and Osborn is like a dog with a juicy bone. He has the binary book to finish.

This has been an illuminating and on-point discussion, kudos to everybody involved, ATS at its best.

a reply to: JimOberg
And your prize-winning article in New Scientist over 40 years ago titled The failure of the 'science' of ufology is still very much on point, Jim. Nothing much has changed since then, has it?
books.google.co.uk...

originally posted by: ianrid
a reply to: JimOberg
And your prize-winning article in New Scientist over 40 years ago titled The failure of the 'science' of ufology is still very much on point, Jim. Nothing much has changed since then, has it?
books.google.co.uk...

Interesting article, but I disagree with its ‘residue hypothesis’.
The 434 unknowns in Special Report 14 did NOT have the characteristics of a ‘residue’ as described in the article.

Let’s look at each ‘residue characteristic’, and compare it with the statistical data in Special Report 14:

1 Lack of data
In Special Report 14, the ‘unknown’ category is different from the ‘insufficient info’ category.
‘Unknown’: 434 cases (19,7%);
‘Insufficient info’: 240 cases (10,9%)
So, the unknowns are NOT a residue due to a lack of data.

2 Lack of repeatability
Special Report 14 states: “All but about 40 unknowns were classified as such solely because they were reported to have performed maneuvers that could not be ascribed to any known objects.”
So, the repeatability is clear: Almost 400 cases where maneuvers were reported that did not fit any of the known categories (balloons, planes, astronomical objects, etc.).

3 False reporting, wishful thinking, deluded observers, rumors, lies, and fraud:
Special Report 14 determined the quality of each report based on (1) the experience of the observer, (2) the consistency of the description of the sighting, (3) the general quality and completeness of the report, and (4) the observer’s fact-reporting ability and attitude.

The percentage of unknowns per quality category was:
Excellent report quality: 33,3% unknowns (71 reports)
Good report quality: 24,8% unknowns (188 reports)
Doubtful report quality: 13% unknowns (103 reports)
Poor report quality: 16,6% unknowns (72 reports)

So, the better the report and its observer, the more unknowns. Most of the unknowns were from good and excellent observers.
This, again, is inconsistent with the characteristics of a ‘residue’ as described in the article.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Why do you think the city of Oxford has a lighthouse?

No wonder everyone I talked to there looked at me like I was crazy when I asked them where the lighthouse was!

And did you know Princess, that you can stay at a 4 star hotel in Oxford for the same price as a small summer motel room in Laguna California during the summer.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

No wonder everyone I talked to there looked at me like I was crazy when I asked them where the lighthouse was!

Yeh a lot of people had you down for a silly Oxford punt.

And did you know Princess, that you can stay at a 4 star hotel in Oxford for the same price as a small summer motel room in Laguna California during the summer.

I didn't know Princess, that was the name of my neighbour's dog, though before she died. I've really no idea why you are comparing hotel prices during a global pandemic either.

Now, to get back on topic. Have you actually got any proof of aliens visiting Earth yet?

Now, to get back on topic. Have you actually got any proof of aliens visiting Earth yet?

Nobody does, not currently
Im a firm believer in ETS possibly come here in the past, why wouldnt they in the billions of years earth have been around
but as for now.. nowadays
all these people in the last century with claims of abduction and experiences not one of them has a shred of actual evidence or genuine footage